IAP Political Forum

The US is the largest arms dealer in the world and as a result we have armed or supported some rather dangerous people in the past. Iran. Iraq. Saudi Arabia. Israel is of course one of our biggest clients, as well as Egypt... to name a few.

Now, does the US have the right to sell weapons to countries? Does this provoke war? What if those countries commit actions that disagree with US policy? What can we do?

Just throwing this out there for an interesting discussion. I hope it doesn't dissapear like some of them seem to do...

I would say that we have the right to arm whoever we please. I don't think it's wise to arm everyone the way we do, but that's a slightly different matter than what rights we have.

I think that provided the country isn't a known threat to us, we should be able to sell to whoever we want.

I would definitely put some of the governments we sell weapons to in the "known threat" category.

I wouldn't classify weapons as aid, especially as in many cases it invokes aid. If America is to give aid in the form of weapons then i would recommend that it does so to a stable and trustworthy country. 

A great topic.

I agree that as a nation, we have a right to arm whoever we choose.  But, I also believe that we have to take responsibility if we are arming a nation and we know their intentions to be hostile or destabilizing.

We can think of it a number of different ways.  First, arms deals are not exclusively one-to-one mapped between buyer and seller.  We sell to many nations that buy from China, Russia, European nations, and others.  So, it is rarely the case that the US is the sole provider of weapons to a state.

Second, how do you know who is good and who is bad?  For instance, the US used to sell weapons to Iran.  After 1979, that stopped (for the most part) after we deemed them a threat to our interests.  As far as I know, almost everything Iran has in terms of military equipment is from Russia, the Chinese, or a few European nations.  Just like the Mujahadeen of Afghanistan, we can arm people to defend themselves and drive away invaders but end up being at odds with them as soon as the invaders leave.  It is impossible to predict who will be a friend in 5, 10, 20 years time.

Third, what about nations that have no defense industry to speak of?  How do they keep up with the pace of the rest of the world?  If we don't sell weapons to a nation - where will they get them assuming nobody else sells them?  And on the same note, if others are willing to sell (like the Chinese and Russians), do we actually harm our image with nations that we won't sell to?  Assume Russia and China are arming country X - if country X is made to chose sides, they are going to chose their "friends" who have been arming them without fail.

So it seems to me that just shutting down military aid may actually hurt us politically.  And thus, if we decide to sell - it is really impossible to know how nations will use our weapons in the future.

These nations will arm themselves regardless, whether it is us, China or Russia who does the selling.

Every billion dollars in sales in the US is another billion dollars the Chinese or Russians don't get.

We can get a piece of this lucrative pie that will never go away, or sit on the sidelines while others profit.

We do not sell our latest and greatest...we sell whatever we have a counter for.

Not entirely accurate.

I know for a fact that Iran was getting some really great shit in the '70s... to the point that the US Ambassador stationed there was concerned.

I only hope this practice has ended.

Selling "some really great shit" does not counter my assessement. Compared to the entire planet, our military hardware is "some really great shit"...we don't however sell proprietary inventory for which competing arms sellers ie: China and Russia have counters to...we keep that for ourselves. The Israelis know this, that is why they privately modify our hardware with their own software.

From: Mission to Iran by Former Ambassador to Iran William H. Sullivan

The first concerned the level of military-equipment sales to Iran. Under previous administrations the Iranaians had been permitted to purchase any amount of weapons they felt they could handle and, in most categories, ones just short of the most sophisticated. They had on the table for discussion with us a significant list of additional military equipment they wished to aquire. I knew the was introducing a memorandum to the executive branch restricting arms sales in general, and I asked how he wished to apply this to Iran.

His response was was quick and specific. He wished to be quite generous with the Iranians, and there was nothing currently on their shopping list under sonsideration that he felt is neccessary to deny them. This specifically included the AWACS aircraft that were still being introduced into the United States Air Force.

We were quite liberal with our technology back then, even ones we were still considering "new". It is this practice that I hope has ended.

Another consideration is the use of those weapons as well as the kind of nations we arm. Should we arm nations that have horrible human rights records, or those without democratic reforms? And what happens when our weapons are used for supressing civilians?

For example lets say the U.S. sells cluster bombs to Pakistan. During fighting with Islamic Extremists the current military dictator decided he needs to use cluster bombs to weed out the terrorists. During the attack hundreds of innocents are killed in order to attack the few terrorists. This kind of thing is highly likley and has happened before.     *cough* Israel *cough*


It seems to me that if we are trying to be a benevolent Republic that is in support of Democracy and Freedom that we should avoid these kinds of situations at all costs.

Um, I don't see how this counters my assessement either...the highlighted portion of your post confirms what I have said.

With regards to the AWACS, if the Air Force wasn't able to easily jam it's capabilities or take them out with air superiority, then we wouldn't sell them....this again confirms my assessement.

If you just don't like us selling things to others, it is one thing...if you think we sell proprietary inventory for which we have no easy counter for...well that's another thing entirely....so it is hard for me to determine now if you have no clue as to what I am saying or whether it is an attempt at just being difficult.

The only answer to your premise is to get out of selling arms altogether....I don't see how that helps us in the least. A gun salesman isn't responsible for the acts of one who buys the gun.
Your solution sends billions upon billions into the pockets of our most deadly competitors, while we get zilch. We also get no ongoing "combat testing and evaluation" of our inventory compared to our competitors if everyone is armed with everyone elses hardware. One of the greatest "combat assessements" of our hardware vs that of Soviet Russia was in the 1967 war brought to Israel. There is no better of assessement of how our hardware will perform except under authentic battle conditions.

Sorry, I had a better reply and then IAP cut out... so I apologize if I forget details that I had in the other.

Patton-

I didn't entirely understand your point. I apologize.

The AWACS, as you well know, are not war planes, but since the Air Force was at the time becoming aquainted with them as well, it isn't far beyond "unreasonable" to think we didn't have a countermeasure. The EW bonus AWACS grant to the Iranians is no different then what it will offer to the US.

My greater point was that I hoped we have stopped selling weapons that are so close to what we consider "modern". I also hope we have stopped selling chemical and biological weapons all together. It didn't work with Iraq too well.


This is a little bigger than the relationship between Lockheed Martin and you.

When a country sells weapons to another there is a level of trust that goes into it. Namely that these weapons will not be used against the US and that these weapons will not be used to endanger US interests.


Do you think the cost of our 2 wars in Iraq outweigh ANY profit we made in selling them the weapons they used against us? Do you think the issues that Israel has created using our weapons outweigh the profit we made selling them?

I'm just saying there are more long term costs then the short term satisfaction of dropping obsolete technology for a pittance.

I still think there is a political reason for it as well.  As I said earlier - those nations that we don't arm have no reason to chose our side above say Russia or China who are selling them weapons.  It is a way to make friends in the world unfortunately. 

I think it would actually harm us if we kept all of our weapons to ourselves while others were out selling theirs. 

It would be an interesting exercise to find historical reference to arms deals and the political gain from those deals.  Further, are there any examples of arms deals that did not transpire that actually hurt relations between two countries?

Patton no where did I imply that we should refrain from weapons sales. What I said was we ARE politically responsible for how our weapons are used. Just as Russia was responsible for arming nations we are equally responsible in similar circumstances.

America never will claim responsibility for anything.  When was the last time we made an apology?

Can you cite how this "standard" you apply to arms sales applies anywhere else in the world of politics?

I will come out and say we should refrain from weapons sales.

OswaldTheOsprey

It's entirely likely that since Israel has a capable military that we are responcible for actions they take with it. Our purpose in the sales of arms was to DEFEND Israel. When Israel takes first-strike actions like this, it is imperative we review what we give them. Defense is one thing... but what Israel did was purely offensive.

Also, the weapons WE GAVE Suddam Hussein (to fight Iran) allowed him to kill his own citizens and strike Kuwait.

These are just the few examples that came to mind.

Re-examine Israeli policy? A good idea-but politically a deathwish! >:(

OswaldTheOsprey

Sadly votes matters more...

Of course. Votes and money. >:(

OswaldTheOsprey

I think this is a little naive.

Again, we stop selling, then others step in and get the sale...we lose billions, while competitors make more and are able to invest more in R&D.

What's to stop a third party to buy for Israel for a profit...they still get what they want.

We still don't know all the facts, but you assume this was offensive when it could have been defensive...seems you wish for a mushroom cloud before Israel takes any action.

Trying to be the nice decent guy in matters of survival and warfare can get you killed...and gives an enemy who may not be so nice and decent first strike capabilities and an upper hand.

Well, if everyone was as sweet and kind as little ole' me we wouldn't be having these wars ;) .

But seriously, I do see your point and understand your argument... but I have to ask, in the long term our weapons sales have created problems with Iraq, Iran... potentially China in the future. And these are just the weapons that have or may be used against us. God forbid Turkey or Israel or Egypt or another client of ours decides to move in on it's neighbors, creating further conflict in the Middle East region.

I guess I'm just asking whether the short term profit is whorth the long term problem that these sales create.

If it wasn't our weapons causing the problem in Iran, Iraq and potentially China...it would be someone elses. Rest assured, the demand for weapons will be met...we can take advantage of a reality we cannot control, or lose hundreds of billions while playing nice, losing out on advantages of our sales I delineated earlier (actual combat field testing under authentic battle conditions versus competitors hardware allowing accurate battle damage assessements)

We are not responsible for HOW our weapons are used...the ones using them are.

To think anything we may sell or give to other nations will never be used in acts of aggression, acts of revenge, acts of condemnation, or acts that inflict disparity, racism, class warfare and suffering is "Ivory Tower" philosophy.

Sending hundreds of tons of food to a starving nation as we did in the 80's-90's ala "Feed the World"...just to have the ruling junta horde it, and let it rot on docks and in warehouses, while keeping the people from it...the people knowing it was there...parents watching their children die knowing food was in the warehouse just rotting...but being shot dead if they approached to get some...this is torture of the worst kind.

We sent food and it was used as psychological torture by the ruling class.

Are WE responsible for how the junta used/misused the food?

A few random points:

American-built arms were sold to Iran (F-14s, Kidd-Class Destroyers) back when Iran was a close ally under the Shah. Just shows how quickly our friends can become our enemies.

The American government doesn't do the selling. Private industry does. Congress's role is prohibiting sales of some weapons to some nations. Congress also gives aid to some nations with the proviso that they use that aid to buy US-manufactured arms. This is a slick deal for members of Congress, who then receive campaign contributions from our arms manufacturers for their aid bills.

An argument can be made that our arms sales, while capturing a net profit, never satisfy anyone and only serve to create MORE tension. Take for instance our arming of Taiwan, an action that will undoubtedly tick off China. We also arm Pakistan, a provocative action that attracts the attention of India... among others. Plus, there is always Israel...

I'm only saying there are political repercussions for our sales of weapons' technology and it is likely that they could eventually become violent repercussions.


I don't subscribe to that philosophy.

I'm saying we give certain countries the means to create conflict... and in some case encourage it, like with our support of Hussein against Iran.


Weapons give a nation the means to fight wars and commit acts of violence. The same cannot be said about food, so I don't think that analogy is appropriate.


Congress has oversight. I hold them partially responcible.

I think we should be able to aid our allies in time of war but for the last 50 years our arms deals have been nothing but disastrous. We've been giving away weapons to leaders and countries that were not our allies and regimes we hardly knew anything about. In turn we end up fighting them ten years down the road with them using our own weapons against us or worse having someone like Saddam commit genocide on his own people. This still continues today as we want to give arms deals to known terrorist countries like Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, and Israel. In my opinion our leaders making these deals are either incredibly dumb or it's all a plan and and excuse so we can go in later and invade those countries knowing full well that they will use those weapons.